The Oatmeal sued over trademark by “Oatmeal Studios”

It's only been a few months since webcomic artist Matthew Inman, operating under the name The Oatmeal, was able to put his bizarre legal clash with competing humor website FunnyJunk to rest.

Now Inman is about to be back in court.

The comic teamed up with the company that owns the Papyrus chain of card and gift shops, Recycled Greetings, to sell paper greeting cards of his Web comics via the The Oatmeal's Web store, along with other novelty items. But that caught the attention of Oatmeal Studios, a Massachusetts greeting card company that says it's been selling greeting cards under that name for 35 years. Oatmeal Studios sued Inman and Recycled Greetings, claiming a trademark on the phrase "Oatmeal Studios." In a complaint filed in Boston federal court earlier today, Oatmeal Studios says that Inman's use of The Oatmeal is too similar, and likely to confuse consumers, who may believe the businesses are related.

The suit [PDF] has only one count—trademark infringement—and doesn't include any specific damage demand. Neither Inman nor officials at Oatmeal Studios immediately responded to requests for comment.

The lawsuit with FunnyJunk ended in a resounding victory for Inman, who was originally upset about his webcomics appearing without his permission on competing site FunnyJunk. Then FunnyJunk's lawyer Charles Carreon actually accused Inman of defamation and demanded $20,000; Inman responded by drawing a picture of a woman meant to be Carreon's mother becoming intimate with a Kodiak bear. Ultimately, Inman raised more than $200,000 from an outraged Internet but didn't pay Carreon a dime after Inman got counsel from EFF and threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP suit.

Only time will tell whether this Oatmeal v. Oatmeal clash will grow to FunnyJunk-like proportions.

116 Reader Comments

The forced intersection of palm and face has just broken my nose. Never have I been so glad that I'm too old to be around to see the inevitable outcome of this shit-slinging. What the actual fuck has this world come to? There was a day when these conflicts were only negotiable by gentlemen (or -women) behind closed doors. Mr. Inman, aside some kinda narrow path you're pretty much fucked by the same system you just so successfully mocked.

The difference this time is that there is a potentially completely valid infringement claim. Trademarks are given within specific business areas ("Unix"-brand plastic containers never infringed on AT&T's claim for instance), and up until now there'd been no conflict.

But now, arguably, The Oatmeal is entering the same business area as Oatmeal studios, and Oatmeal studios were unarguably first in that area. So the question will probably largely be whether "The Oatmeal" is so similar to "Oatmeal Studios" as to confuse or mislead consumers. I don't know the specifics of such cases, but it doesn't look cut and dried to me.

I love The Oatmeal. But this looks potentially valid, and I don't want a world where you win cases like this because you're better liked or or have more resources than the other guy.

The forced intersection of palm and face has just broken my nose. Never have I been so glad that I'm too old to be around to see the inevitable outcome of this shit-slinging. What the actual fuck has this world come to? There was a day when these conflicts were only negotiable by gentlemen (or -women) behind closed doors. Mr. Inman, aside some kinda narrow path you're pretty much fucked by the same system you just so successfully mocked.

Yeah.. though I have to hope for the sake of the plantiff that they at least tried to settle this amicably out of court.. IIRC, the courts tend to take a dim view of being used as the first notification of infringement. Though the single claim and no request for damages seems straightforward enough, if Oatmeal Studios has a registered trademark in the greeting card business, they have the right to claim that this could cause dilution of their brand. (More importantly, according to trademark law, if they do NOT attempt to defend their brand, they lose some of their footing if they try to in the future against The Oatmeal, or anyone else. Trademarks are lost if not proactively defended, unlike copyright or patents. I honestly think we should consider something similar for patents, or at least software patents.)

I dont think the two cases are comparable. FunnyJunk didn't have a compelling reason to sue The Oatmeal and its attempt looked more like extortion than a sound legal case. Matt Inman made fun of it in a way that got him a lot of sympathy from the internet crowd and raised a lot of money in the process. FunnyJunk and Charles Carreon didn't stand a chance to win any sympathies in that case - beside having a very weak legal basis.This case seems much more legit to me (IANAL) and I don't think a strategy where Matt Inman is going to make fun of Oatmeal Studios will be helpful.In the end his site The Oatmeal is selling greeting cards and there is a company called Oatmeal Studios that is also selling greeting cards. To me as a legal layman the legal action taken by Oatmeal Studios in this case doesn't have the ring of the absurd as it was the case with FunnyJunk; thus I guess the case will not likely upset the internet denizens the same way as the earlier case did.I would think about a more traditional legal defense strategy if I were The Oatmeal in this case.

E: I should stop ignoring the red underlines of the spell checking, would save me a lot of editing

Before cuing the internet rage, it's worth realizing that Oatmeal Studios risked losing it's trademark if they didn't defend it once The Oatmeal entered the greeting card market. I believe the same/similar names can be trademarked by 2 (or more) different entities as long as the claims cover non overlapping markets. However, once the two trademarks are used in the same market, then the original owner must defend it or lose it.

I don't know if Oatmeal Studio contacted The Oatmeal before filing the lawsuit, but if I ran a small business selling widget X for 3+ decades and a larger company of a very similar name that was known for a completely unrelated reason started selling competitors to widget X I would be pissed.

The Oatmeal will lose the right to the name in the greeting card market. They will have to just settle for a Porridge line of cards from Recycled with Inman credited as the artist.

IMHO "The Oatmeal" IS similar enough to "Oatmeal Studios" to cause confusion for people who do not know either outfit. Oatmeal Studios is being relatively polite in that they are simply asking The Oatmeal to stop using the name in the greeting card industry ... If they are asking Inman to change the name he uses to market cartoons outside the greeting card industry though, then it would be a whole different issue.

There's a solitary reference to an 'Ingram' in the story. I'm assuming that is meant to refer to Inman, is that correct?

The first three Google results for 'Oatmeal greeting cards' are all of Inman's Oatmeal, though Oatmeal Studios does show up on the first page.

Greeting cards seem to be an industry which should be in decline. I can't remember the last time I ever received a card from anyone under the age of 40. I've probably purchased 10 or less my entire life.

The forced intersection of palm and face has just broken my nose. Never have I been so glad that I'm too old to be around to see the inevitable outcome of this shit-slinging. What the actual fuck has this world come to? There was a day when these conflicts were only negotiable by gentlemen (or -women) behind closed doors. Mr. Inman, aside some kinda narrow path you're pretty much fucked by the same system you just so successfully mocked.

Yeah.. though I have to hope for the sake of the plantiff that they at least tried to settle this amicably out of court.. IIRC, the courts tend to take a dim view of being used as the first notification of infringement. Though the single claim and no request for damages seems straightforward enough, if Oatmeal Studios has a registered trademark in the greeting card business, they have the right to claim that this could cause dilution of their brand. (More importantly, according to trademark law, if they do NOT attempt to defend their brand, they lose some of their footing if they try to in the future against The Oatmeal, or anyone else. Trademarks are lost if not proactively defended, unlike copyright or patents. I honestly think we should consider something similar for patents, or at least software patents.)

Truth. My knee-jerk feeling (despite my emotional favoritism of The Oatmeal) is that plaintiff has a defensible case. It's just that we no longer live in a world (seemingly) where Oatmeal and The Oatmeal can independently negotiate a fair outcome without being driven by outside influences. That used to be a given, it's not any more, and that's why I thank God that I have no more than 20 years left (by actuarial tables) to endure this nonsense.

Unless anyone here has inside knowledge of what discussions did or didn't take place prior to the lawsuit, I would think it's a bit premature to fire up the indignation engine.

I have to assume there was some attempt at contact/resolution before hand. The other company doesn't exactly look nefarious of dodgy.

This does seem like a completely valid trademark infringement case. The names a practically identical from a trademark standpoint, they are in the same trade, and the content of The Oatmeal's cards is sufficiently similar that Oatmeal Studios' customers could be very confused. The vast majority of people looking for The Oatmeal's cards will be able to easily tell the difference, but I think that a good portion of the durdles that are looking for Oatmeal Studios products could fail to see them as different companies.

The Oatmeal should get Oatmeal Studios to market The Oatmeal cards, problem solved :-)

There's a lesson here about choosing common names for trademarks when starting a venture. The possibility of collision when trying to move to a different sector, or when a bigger better known company moves to your sector is too great.Even if you win, you lose

How strange, a trademark case with which I agree. Although I fully support The Oatmeal in all his endeavors (his buying into Tesla myths notwithstanding), he should probably change the tagline on the cards to something like "The Oatmeal, Internet Comic."

Greeting cards seem to be an industry which should be in decline. I can't remember the last time I ever received a card from anyone under the age of 40. I've probably purchased 10 or less my entire life.

Maybe. OTOH, I'm under 40 and I send out cards for birthdays and Christmas all the time. Everytime I'm in a greeting card store (e.g. Hallmark), I see teens and 20-somethings shopping there. Also, people all of ages send out physical bereavement cards; it's just polite.

On the contrary, I'd guess it's the greeting card business that's barely keeping the postal service alive (along with business mail and the shipping of physical goods.)

Yeah, as another fan of The Oatmeal, I'm still going to side with most people here on thinking that this is a pretty decent case of trademark infringement on his part. It's not something that's hard to do, and I'm sure there wasn't any malice on his part. He just saw an opportunity to make greeting cards and didn't consider checking his name against anyone else selling cards. If he's getting good legal advice, he should try very hard to work out an agreement with Oatmeal Studios quickly.

I find this kind of suit to be entirely within reason. Hopefully it can be resolved amicably and that the Internets doesn't start an unfair flame war against this company. Regardless of how much any of us likes the Oatmeal it's perfectly reasonable for a similarly named greeting card company to want to avoid people confusing their brand with another, which indeed seems quite possible in this case.

as a huge fan of theoatmeal and a hater of teh funny jonk, i can actually see the Oatmeal cards stance. Inman has huge sway and if Inman throws into an industry where there was an existing Oatmeal, then that could be kinda crappy.

i feel that Matt has the good conscience to make the right decision in this

I realize the names are the same, and recognize the validity of the case in terms of trademark law, but do people really buy greeting cards based on brand name? The only people buying Oatmeal comic greeting cards are fans of the comic, not people looking for Oatmeal Studios cards.

What I am wondering right now is if the court would take internet forums into evidence for the decision if the brands could get easily confused or not.Just by skimming the comments section here I come to the conclusion that the majority of the commenters thinks that there is indeed a possibility of brand confusion and now I ask myself if Oatmeals Studio's lawyers would be allowed to bring that up as an evidence in the case (or in any other similar trademark case).

But wait a minute, I though all "internet people" were unreasonable and wanted to steal everything from everyone and ensure that no intellectual rights could ever be enforced? That they're all filthy pirates who are deserving of at least excoriation, if not incarceration?

What is this reasonable agreement with a plaintiff in a trademark case?

The difference this time is that there is a potentially completely valid infringement claim. Trademarks are given within specific business areas ("Unix"-brand plastic containers never infringed on AT&T's claim for instance), and up until now there'd been no conflict.

But now, arguably, The Oatmeal is entering the same business area as Oatmeal studios, and Oatmeal studios were unarguably first in that area. So the question will probably largely be whether "The Oatmeal" is so similar to "Oatmeal Studios" as to confuse or mislead consumers. I don't know the specifics of such cases, but it doesn't look cut and dried to me.

I love The Oatmeal. But this looks potentially valid, and I don't want a world where you win cases like this because you're better liked or or have more resources than the other guy.

I have to agree. The Oatmeal and Oatmeal Studios are exactly the type of situation that trademark law exists to prevent. Until today I'd never heard of Oatmeal Studios, but I would instantly assume The Oatmeal was related if I saw them after The Oatmeal's cards.

That said, there's an argument there for The Oatmeal's infringement actually HELPING Oatmeal Studios by associating them with a better-known entity. At the same time, it could hurt them in the eyes of anyone offended by The Oatmeal's comics.

Fortunately, this could be dealth with relatively simply with a disclaimer of any association with Oatmeal Studios, and the fact that they're not making any specific damages claims (nor did the article mention seeking an injunction) indicates this may be an acceptable outcome in the eyes of Oatmeal Studios.

What I am wondering right now is if the court would take internet forums into evidence for the decision if the brands could get easily confused or not.Just by skimming the comments section here I come to the conclusion that the majority of the commenters thinks that there is indeed a possibility of brand confusion and now I ask myself if Oatmeals Studio's lawyers would be allowed to bring that up as an evidence in the case (or in any other similar trademark case).

Problem with taking forum comments as evidence is they are completely non-representative of the public at large.

Well maybe they do actually have a valid point about confusion, but surely any confusion means that The Oatmeal's popularity would HELP Oatmeal Studios?

1) Only if said confusion leads to increased sales of Oatmeal Studios (and therefore less sales for The Oatmeal)2) They are still required to defend their trademark unless they want The Oatmeal to take it from them

The difference this time is that there is a potentially completely valid infringement claim. Trademarks are given within specific business areas ("Unix"-brand plastic containers never infringed on AT&T's claim for instance), and up until now there'd been no conflict.

But now, arguably, The Oatmeal is entering the same business area as Oatmeal studios, and Oatmeal studios were unarguably first in that area. So the question will probably largely be whether "The Oatmeal" is so similar to "Oatmeal Studios" as to confuse or mislead consumers. I don't know the specifics of such cases, but it doesn't look cut and dried to me.

I love The Oatmeal. But this looks potentially valid, and I don't want a world where you win cases like this because you're better liked or or have more resources than the other guy.

Perhaps he could stop selling cards under "The Oatmeal" name and open a second business sell the cards from. This second business would have a totally different name and different URL, and would sell cards with characters licensed from "The Oatmeal" but not actually use The Oatmeal name. Then, on The Oatmeal website he could link to the store, Inman's second company.